Tag Archives: Ned Jacobs

Learn about the Rezoning Application

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

As I edit my feature documentary about the story of Little Mountain, Holborn conducts its first public exercise.

HOLBORN PRESENTS their Rezoning Application for Little Mountain – Nov 2015 from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.

I taped this a couple of days ago at a meeting of the Little Mountain Advisory Group. Speakers are in order of appearance, David Chudnovsky, Ben Johnson (city planner) Martin Bruckner (architect) Ned Jacobs and city planner.

 CBC REPORT on Saturday’s Open House is their TOP STORY

YOUR chance to comment is coming up at two Open Houses on November 28 at (Brock Elementary School) and December 3 — 5:00pm – 8:00pm at the Holy Name of Jesus Parish Church (4925 Cambie Street). These are your KEY opportunity to comment on the plan.

ESSENTIAL City info here:  http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/little-mountain.aspx

LEAVE COMMENTS  on either of my FACEBOOK SITES:
https://www.facebook.com/david.vaisbord
https://www.facebook.com/LittleMountainFilm

SEND ME a note and I’ll put you on my email list for the PREMIERE of >>”Champions of Little Mountain” << click to view new TRAILER.

OPEN HOUSES:

Saturday – November 28th 2015 from 11am to 3 pm
General Brock Elementary School Gymnasium
4860 Main Street

Thursday – December 3rd 2015 from 5pm to 8 pm
Holy Name of Jesus Parish Church
4925 Cambie Street at 33rd

See you there,
David

 

SUPPORT this project at:
Littlemountainfilm.com

Did you like this? Share it:

At Langara University with Dr. Wendy Sarkissian and Guests

Posted on by

Last night I joined Dr. Wendy Sarkissian‘s Urban Planning class at Langara University in the company of dedicated civic activists including Eileen Mosca of Grandview, Gudrun Langolf of Marpole, Ned Jacobs of Riley Park/South Cambie, Randy Helten of Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver and Jak King, president of the Grandview-Woodland Area Council.

Vaisbord@LANGARA2_finalwebsize

Vaisbord speaks to Langara University Planning Students on Oct 21, 2014

It was a great conversation. King’s overview of the event is here on his blog:  Jak’s View of Vancouver.  And kudos to students April and Elona who did a great job of of organizing the session.

Undergraduate Student, Ned Jacobs, Jak King in Sarkissian’s Langara Classroom

Dr. Wendy Sarkissian was featured in a video I posted last year titled: Densification Wars: A Conversation with Dr. Wendy Sarkissian PhD.  Sarkissian’s students who come from all parts of the globe, were eager to be informed about the current state of community and urban planning in Vancouver.

The Langara class began with a discussion of the Little Mountain Project.  A key discussion point was the clip A Moment of Truth.  The flaw within the community consultation process is clearly visible. Planner Ben Johnson must inform the community that their recommendations will never be accepted:  “a higher level of direction” controls the process that includes both senior staff and City Council  — all Vision Party dominated — rendering the entire process, nearly irrelevant.

Vaisbord@LANGARA_websize

Vaisbord speaks on the Little Mountain Project – Vancouver planner Ben Johnson projected on screen, from a video entitled: “Meeting 29: The Moment of Truth”.

I qualify the process as “nearly irrelevant” because the community, with the assistance of the planning department accomplished what they set out to do. The community was ready to unanimously support a final document but that document wasn’t good enough for “senior staff” who opted for a higher density than that recommended by the community. The fact that Vision staff and councillors chose to poison the well in the end was a huge disappointment to everyone, except the developer Holborn Properties, of course.
This, and many other flawed consultation processes are coming back to haunt the Vision Party as it seeks re-election by angry Vancouver communities seeking input into the future of their city.

All for now,
David
For information on how to support the film project go to: http://www.littlemountainfilm.com/

Follow The Little Mountain Project on FACEBOOK:
https://www.facebook.com/david.vaisbord
https://www.facebook.com/LittleMountainFilm
Follow The Little Mountain Project on TWITTER:
https://twitter.com/davidvaisbord

Did you like this? Share it:

POV Magazine features the Little Mountain Project

Posted on by

Hello Friends and Neighbours,

Check out the Summer 2013 issue of Point of View Magazine. A feature article about The Little Mountain Project is inside! It’s a concise overview of what I’ve been doing over the past 5 years.

You can read from here:
POV Magazine & The Little Mountain Project 2013
or from POV Magazine:
http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/the-little-mountain-project-a-hyperlocal-manifesto

POV is Canada’s premiere magazine about documentaries and independent films. If you would like to read the entire issue, you can find it in magazine shops across the country.

The cover looks like this:
(I’ve added the notes in RED)

POV Summer 2013 Issue - Notes by the author

POV Summer 2013 Issue – Notes by the author

Cheers,
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project

Did you like this? Share it:

A Moment of Truth: a 7-minute clip

Posted on by

I offer you a moment of truth.
Seven minutes from Meeting #29 of the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group, or as Ned Jacobs describes it: “a key point in a meeting between the CAG and the planners when the question of who is calling the shots was asked, but not satisfactorily answered.”
(see full text below)

Moments like these often end up defining an entire process.
It remains to be seen, what happens at City Hall next week.

Commentary on the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group Policy Statement, by Ned Jacobs:
June 21, 2012

In many respects, the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group (CAG) statement and recommendations are consistent with those of planning staff, but they differ in regard to overall density and building heights.

Planning staff have recommended that density in the range of 2.3 to 2.5 gross FSR be considered. This may not seem excessive, compared to net FSR figures for some recent high-density proposals for a single building or a city block, but the Little Mountain site is greater than 15 acres and will include streets and public plazas, which limit the overall ground coverage to about 40%.

For a variety of reasons specific to this site and its context, as well as the place and functions of the Riley Park neighbourhood in the city, the CAG concluded that density up to about 2 FSR was appropriate, but are willing to contemplate the risks of accommodating density up to 2.2 FSR to achieve key public amenities, or 2.3 FSR on condition that the additional units are non-market to increase social housing on the site. A target of 20% social housing is supported by both the City and the CAG, but cannot be achieved unless the province is willing to subsidize construction of at least 65 non-market units in addition to the 234 units they have committed to replace.

2.2 FSR is 50% greater than what could be achieved under the approved Community Vision Directions, which would limit building heights to 4 storeys and about 1.45 FSR. The difference between 2.2 and 2.5 FSR is significant: nearly 200 units, equivalent to about three 8-storey apartment buildings or at least one additional storey on each of approximately 20 buildings in the site plan. It would likely necessitate accommodating parking and traffic impacts from at least 150 additional cars, and put further strain on already stressed amenities and services. The CAG considers 2.5 FSR to be excessive, and highly problematic.

The CAG studied several existing high density large-site developments in Vancouver. In regard to the Olympic Village, at 2.6 FSR, the CAG concluded that the combination of building heights and ground coverage resulted in an overly canyon-like environment, not well suited for a family-oriented development. Arbutus Walk, at 1.9 FSR, was more comparable to the Little Mountain site in terms of neighbourhood context. CAG participants appreciated the human scale and diversity of housing types, which includes rowhouses, but thought that some of the green space is underused and might have been better utilized as floor space, while reducing the height and massing of an overly dominant building.

In regard to building heights, planning staff recommend that most of the buildings range from 4 to 8 storeys, with up to two buildings of 12 storeys. The CAG recommends that the majority of buildings be in the 4 to 6 storey range with no building greater than 10 storeys (or 100 feet) in order to preserve high quality public views to and from Queen Elizabeth Park, reduce shadowing, and provide better transitions of scale to the surrounding neighbourhood. There was little public support at the open houses for buildings over 9 storeys. The developer, Holborn Properties, is asking Council to amend the staff recommendations to permit consideration of one 14-storey building to provide “punctuation.” It also seems doubtful that Holborn will ne willing to provide the full complement of Development Cost Levies (DCLs) and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) on the market units and, when it comes to rezoning may balk at the recommendation that all 234 replacement social housing units be built in the initial phase of construction.

Many CAG participants have a strong sense that the City’s “Little Mountain “planning team” is not actually comfortable with the density (up to 2.5 FSR) that they have recommended, but are responding to directions from “higher levels” within the administration. If these directions are in fact coming from the Mayor and/or powers that be on City Council, this is a problem because it means that professional arms length between our planners and our elected officials has been compromised. It was rumoured that on several occasions Planning Director Brent Toderian considered resigning because parts of some planning staff reports had been rewritten in the office of the General Manager and sent back with the expectation that he would “sign off” on them, and that Toderian’s discomfort with this was a major factor in his being fired “without cause.” One CAG member questioned whether the LM density recommendations are “circular”, meaning that the decision-makers are instructing staff in regard to recommendations, presumably to create the appearance that staff supports those decisions. Here is a link to a 7-minute video segment (by documentary film maker David Vaisbord) of a key point in a meeting between the CAG and the planners when the question of who is calling the shots was asked, but not satisfactorily answered. littlemountainproject.com

Ned Jacobs is a founding member of Riley Park/South Cambie Community Visions, Community Advocates for Little Mountain (CALM), and a participant on the CAG.

David Vaisbord
Observer + Participant
The Little Mountain Project

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #29 The City’s Position on Little Mountain (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)

Posted on by

Meeting #29
THE CITY’S POSITION on Holborn’s Little Mountain Plan.
April 3, 2012

The Planning Department outlines their support for, and criticisms of the Holborn Concept. By defining their position, the Planning Department defines the difference between their position and that of the community. Shocked and surprised? No, not really. The community understands the challenges ahead.

Full Meeting:

In the meeting…

The Advisory Group compliments the planning department on their work, but finds that although the planning departments criticisms are many and good, their overall density of the site is unworkable at their suggested range of 2.3fsr to 2.5fsr.

The Advisory Group suggests that the maximum density be pegged at 2.3, as was represented as the point at which the developer would make a profit and the community get the amenities it wants. (Coriolis presentation Meeting #23)

Patricia St. Michel’s power point presentation can be viewed in complete PDF format on the City of Vancouver’s Major Site Planning Pages. If your computer screen is big enough you can view both the PDF and video at the same time, getting the best visuals and commentary simultaneously.

Shorter Version: 45 min.

Highlights of the Short Version:

00:45 – Ben Johnson of City Planning presents Holborn’s density numbers:
1834 housing units of which 1600 are Market and 234 are Social Housing.
Density Range 2.5 – 2.8FSR.
01:30 – Patricia St. Michel of City Planning presents the City’s critique of Holborn design.
02:29 – Holborn’s Little Mountain plan shown to have higher density than Olympic Village.
03:15 – View analysis from Peak of Queen Elizabeth Park, across Little Mountain Site.
05:45 – Summary of height and density changes requested by the City Planning Department.

Summary of Planners changes to Holborn housing plan

07:45 – Patricia St. Michel states City Planning’s preference for a 2.3 to 2.5 FSR range.
08:00 – Community Discussion Begins
08:00 – Where is shadow analysis at Xmas time? Answer has to do with Northern Climate Challenges.
10:00 – Issue of South site transitions rapidly rising from 4 to 7 stories.
10:50 – Why lower scale buildings and tighter courtyards (in keeping with single family neighbourhood) are not an option.
12:39 – James Cheng mentions that there may not be a housing solution that the Little Mountain Neighbourhood will accept.
13:29 – Community Member (Deborah) thanks the Planning Department on their careful analysis, principle and performance based, and the ways the height trimming is considered and why…but argues that the amount of housing load that is being considered for the site is too much.
17:10 – Ben Johnson argues that Holborn will need to earn the extra density above 2.3 with exceptional housing design.
17:40 – Frustrated observer argues that sunlight discussion is irrelevant.
19:00 – Patricia discusses “Mystery Lake” and water features on the site.
19:30 – President of the Neighbourhood House argues that the deal is good.
20:30 – Norm Dooley (RPSC) argues that Arbutus Walk (Meeting #15) is a better model for Little Mountain housing, and that Little Mountain won’t solve all of Vancouver’s problems. Applause follows.
27:00 – From the very beginning, the entire BC Gov’t concept is wrong, when “We’re selling the house to pay for the furniture.”
28:00 – Another notice of Mystery Lake.

"Mystery Lake" in Little Mountain housing design

28:30 – Neighbourhood House Executive Director argues in favour of the plan owing to costs of building and land, (Arbutus Walk built many years ago) and the amenities delivered.
32:00 – Frustrated observer says “Go ahead full force!”
33:30 – Resident argues that this new housing plan is a stark change for this community.
35:00 – Ben Johnson explains how the city will present both their position and the position of the Little Mountain Advisory Group to Vancouver City Council.

Super Sized Olympic-style density was proposed for Little Mountain Housing

Things START TO HEAT UP here:
36:00 – Resident wonders if the next 3 meetings are worth attending, since the City has presented the essence of their position. The answer is vague.
38:30 – Ned Jacobs argues that even if 2.3 is the best number owing to the political pressure that is exerted on City Planners to increase densities during further development phases.
40:45 – Resident of North of 33rd Avenue Group asks if the City would acknowledge a consensus of the residents of Little Mountain at 2.3FSR and adopt it? The City answers that there are levels of senior management at City Hall who have provided direction of 2.3 to 2.5 FSR owing to multiple city priorities. So the answer is no.
42:00 – WHO is the HIGHER LEVEL? (of decision making in the city)
43:30 – This is YOUR community, but not YOUR city.
44:30 – Ingrid Steenhuisen points out how far the community has come in the acceptance of high densities – of which 2.3FSR is a high density.
45:20 – A discussion ensues about how a Little Mountain Advisory Group Sub Group could write a report which would send a powerful message to Vancouver City Council about their agreement regarding the density which they see as maximum for their neighbourhoods.

After considerable discussion it becomes clear that there will be 3 different presentations that go to council:

One by the Planning department,
One by the Holborn Group,
One by the Advisory Group.

But there is a considerable amount of finessing to take place, so it is unclear what the city’s final position will look like. By the end of this meeting, there is considerable tension in the room, as what goodwill that once existed between the planning department and the citizens apparently evaporates. Ben Johnson states that at a higher political level there is approval of their recommendations. Considering the considerable investment of time, effort, and intelligence in the process, community members wonder if council will consider their input at all.

The Advisory Group does not consider that its input has been narrowly defined by self interest, but by the needs of the surrounding community and the city as a whole, in terms of amenities, infrastructure (including transit, traffic, cycling, park, educational, social, arts issues etc.)and the crisis in social and affordable housing.

Next episodes:
Meeting #30 Traffic and Transportation issues
Meeting #31 Amenities & Affordability
Meeting #32 Holborn speaks to former residents
Meeting #33 **Design Panel – Uploaded 2 weeks ago** check “Recent Posts”
Meeting #34 Sustainability Policies and Little Mountain
Meeting #35 ADVISORY GROUP PRESENTS THEIR RESPONSE
MEETING #36 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 2012.

Olympic Village vs Little Mountain densities


Heading to City Council:
The finish line has been tentatively set for June 27, 2012.
That’s the date when the Little Mountain Advisory Committee, the City of Vancouver planning department, the Holborn Group, and You make your thoughts known to Vancouver City Council about the deliberations of the past 2 and a half years. At the meeting the planning department will present a policy statement on the current plans, for the approval of City Council. If approved, the policy statement will guide the future rezoning process at the Little Mountain site. The rezoning process (up to a year or more in duration) will include public and legal processes.

David Vaisbord
Little Mountain Neighbourhood

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #26 Heading to OPEN HOUSE 2012 – It’s HOT in here.

Posted on by

Little Mountain Development
Meeting #26
December 2011


1. Meeting #26 — The 10 minute highlights clip.

GET INFORMED prior to the Little Mountain OPEN HOUSES, scheduled for next week – info at the bottom of this posting.

The Holborn Group’s Final Submission to the Community
I’ve connected 2 videos to this posting, which are as follows:

1. A ten-minute Highlights video – watch this for a quick overview.
2. The complete two-hour public meeting.

PLEASE NOTE: If you’ve watched the 10-minute clip, and want to hear more of what the community has to say about this development, start viewing at roughly the one-hour mark. Highlights of the complete 2-hour meeting are listed further down this page.


2. Meeting #26 — The Full two-hour meeting.

Escalating tension and conflict.

Was there any doubt, when this whole thing began more than 2 year ago, that in the end the developer would be wanting massive density levels at Little Mountain? It only took them 2 years to get around to mentioning it. To their credit Vancouver planning department have their own criticisms of the Holborn proposal, and appear to be listening to the public throughout.

Model of Fsr 2.8 - for THIS Open House


Model Preview Photos
You will not find photos of these models anywhere else but here, prior to the Open House. So take a good look at them before you attend the Open House. The top of each building has a sticker that indicates the number of stories.

Images at left: Top image is the FSR 2.7 from the July 2011 Open Houses. Lower image is the FSR 2.8 (Higher density) proposed in the presentation destined for the upcoming Open House. Click on them to see greater magnification and then chose Full Size.

Note that FSR 2.8 in this new model, though higher density than FSR 2.7 accomplishes this by slightly lowering building heights, and reducing green space between the buildings. Top height is 14 stories on Ontario street, which is two stories higher than Queen Elizabeth Park. To put FSR 2.7 into context link to Density Models – The Movie! which I shot after the July 2011 Open House, when 6 density models were presented, from the base concept at 1.45 to the developer’s dream density of 3.25 FSR. According to an independent financial analyst (Meeting #23 Part 2) FSR 2.25 should be sufficient to ensure financial success of the project.

Special guest at this meeting was city councillor Adriane Carr, (Green Party). We hope that she came away with some new insights. Joo Kim Tiah (The Holborn Group President – who makes a rare speaking appearance here) has stated his intention to take this plan before City Hall.

Projected view from duck pond at QE Park

Also, check out this Mainlander New article about Meeting #26 at this URL: http://themainlander.com/2011/12/12/little-mountain-why-the-struggle-for-social-housing-is-more-pressing-now-than-ever/

Connect to the The City of Vancouver’s Little Mountain Site Planning Program, and their NOTICE OF THE OPEN HOUSES.

Here are some of the MAJOR TOPICS and HIGHLIGHTS of Meeting #26 (complete two-hour meeting) and where to find them:

00:02 – Joo Kim Tiah explains why iconic Social Housing defender James Green resigned from The Holborn Group.

00:07 – Ben Johnson briefly discusses the pocket of single family residences to the North and East of Little Mountain (bordered by Main and 33rd) known as the NE Quadrant, and plans to integrate them into the larger development plan. Ben goes on to give short overview, interesting if you’ve never heard it before.

00:10 – Johnson explains the consequences of a “disconnect” between where the community wants to be, and where Holborn wants to be — it will go to City Council.

00:12 – Johnson answers question: “How far is this plan from the community vision?” You can find out for yourself by viewing Meeting #25, the analysis of public opinion gathered from the last July 2011 Open House.

Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting #25 Public Comments Analysed from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.

00:14 – Architect James Cheng presents overview of the last 2 years. If you’re new to this process you may want to review this. Cites the Stanley King process, viewable at Meeting#1 The Stanley King Experience (short version) and Long Version.

00:24 – Cheng suggests that the Community Advisory Committee accept responsibility for the hardship of the former residents of Little Mountain, who have been waiting 2 years to return to their homes – since the BC Gov’t demolished them. Translation: “Hurry up and approve this development.” Also see David Chudnovsky (1:02).

00:26 – Cheng suggest that saving trees on the site preserves the “memory” of the site as the first major social housing project constructed in British Columbia. Also see Ingrid Steenhuisen on memory (1:09).

00:33 – Christopher Phillips landscape presentation – green elements.

00:40 – Traffic projections on the new site plan – only for people who drive.

00:46 – Views of Models and Presentation materials – take a look at ‘em. Put them into context by linking to Density Models – The Movie! which I shot after the July 2011 Open House, when 6 density models were presented. You’ll understand what densites of 1.45 to 3.25 FSR look like.

Little Mountain Redevelopment: Density Models – The Movie! from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.

00:48 – Pat St. Michel presents the planning department’s critique of plan. Lot’s of height – no daylight.

1:00 – Neighbour comments on shadow impacts, and that presentation materials only show March, but not December shadows. Say goodbye to the sun.

1:02 – Former MLA David Chudnovsky makes compelling arguments for the rejection of the plan and the developer, owing to absurdly high density, lack of affordability and transparency. Among other things, he refutes James Cheng’s plea for the suffering of the ex-tenants. (00:24). He reminds the assembly that it was his community that fought long and hard against the premature demolition, and that the responsibility for the suffering of former residents should be borne by those who destroyed it: the Liberal Government of British Columbia and The Holborn Group.

1:09 – Ingrid Steenhuisen (Little Mountain project resident) asks why memory of the housing complex – in the form of the preservation of the last building currently standing on the Little Mountain site – has not been thoroughly investigated. A rebuttal to Cheng’s idea that tree preservation is sufficient. (00:26)

1:13 – RPSC’s Norm Dooley, makes compelling arguments for the rejection of the plan and the developer citing lack of sustainability on any level. In particular, he contrasts the Holborn plan to similar successful re-developments across Vancouver which densified — within reasonable limits. Norm mentions Arbutus Walk, which was toured by the Advisory Committee in 2010 and viewable on Vimeo at Meeting #15 Arbutus Walk – Touring a major housing site.

Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting #15 Arbutus Walk – Touring a major housing site – Low Res/Standard Def from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.

1:22 – Ned Jacobs challenges the notion that there will be sufficient civic amenities to service a project of this scale, owing to current overcrowding at the new Hillcrest centre.

1:26 – Community member recalls the past 2 years of meetings, and reminds the architect that the community has waited for 2 years for him to lay down his cards with respect to the scale and scope of the project. She argues that the community has come a long way to accepting higher density, but that the scale of the proposal is impossible to accept.

1:42 – Community members suggest that community and developer may part company.
_________________________________________________________________

Little Mountain Public Open Houses:
Thursday Jan 26 @7pm – 9pm
Saturday Jan 28 @11am – 2pm
Brock Elementary School – 4860 Main street (at 33rd Ave)
_________________________________________________________________

David Vaisbord
Self-appointed documentary filmmaker-in-residence.
Little Mountain Community

Note: If you have questions about FSR and the economic arguments mentioned in discussion please view “Meeting #23 – PART 2 The Economic Analysis” in this video series. In this meeting, the independent financial analyst identifies FSR 2.25 as being sufficient for the developer to make a profit, and public amenities to be constructed. Watch it here:

Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting#23 – PART 2 The Economic Analysis from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.

Did you like this? Share it: